I agree with previous reviews about the coldness of the characters, but l guess the real people who inspired the story are like that. The word 'cynical' is right there in the description so we were kind of warned.. It's very hopeful, the choices Fenton the protagonist makes are changing. Maybe that's not done in the most clever way (: but it is nice. Of course the cinematography is very fun and draws you in. Chris Noth is wildly entertaining and lively as a terrible husband and womanizer, not that it is a surprise to be entertained by Noth. Side note: Seeing Mary-Louise Parker as a desperate housewife was sad, it's not like her......

Everything that happens in this film is right off the "indie quirky cute funny sad happily ever after wealthy dysfunctional family drama" checklist. While the story line is unfailingly familiar, the characters are played by mostly engaging actors and the film doesn't bog down in any one place for too long so you are able to watch to the end without getting bored or surprised. This film was described in one blurb as clever and cynical, and maybe it was back in the '70s, but now it's just tame and typical.

Fenton the writer returns home for a week, to a very hostile group. His own family, his ex, various friends and acquaintances around town. Some extra complications include his cheating father, in the hospital after an accident. The impending marriage of his ex girlfriend. Even his mother thinks it was wrong for fenton to write about the people around him, in such an obvious way. So much bickering. The mother seems to be willing to put up with dad's cheating, as long as she can nag him about it incessantly. At first. The usual dysfunctional family that most of us experienced, growing up. This seems to be about fenton returning to face his demons. He hurt a lot of people by writing about them in his book, then disappearing. Living with one's choices. Regret. Forgiveness. Lots of long, thoughtful scenes, with music playing in the background. It's okay... a thinker film. No big car chases or adventure in this one. Directed by xavier manrique, his third film direction. Story by nicholas schutt.

Surprised at the low ratings so I have to add my two cents- this film was one of those that requires watching the non-dialogue scenes - in other words visual engagement is required, in addition to audio in order to understand the characters. As the scenes unfold -sometimes in flashbacks they allow us to follow the development (or lack thereof) of the characters as they negotiate their family dysfunctions becoming public and also deal with the aftermath of previous exposes. I liked that this wasn't a typical happily ever after romance in that the main character, Fenton realized that he would be hurting the woman he loved more by trying to hold onto her- that awareness came after having a heart-to-heart with his father in the park where they actually got real with each other. Those moments were, the culmination of all the scenes that came before showing how little they communicated or cared about connecting with each other outside of their superficial ego, driven scripts. I found this a really enjoyable film, kind of a bittersweet ending, but so much like real life; things don't go the way we always want them to so we do our best to learn from them and make the best of it .

This film tells the story of a young writer, who goes back home to New York to find that his dysfunctional family is falling apart. To top that up, his ex-girlfriend that he cannot get over with is getting married to another guy in a few days. "Chronically Metropolitan" is basically a showcase of how not to make a film. The plot is boring and tedious. It is just plain and uneventful. Camera work is really plain as there are many long shots showing conversations, and this would have been broken up to close up on the speakers in other films. The point of view for the viewers is almost like an passive bystander, without any engagement with the characters or the situation they are in. The actors are mostly devoid of any emotions, as they sleepwalk through their roles, delivering lines in a passionless and lethargic manner as if they were kids being forced to read texts reluctantly. The only exception is Josh Peck, who at least muster smiles and look energetic in his role. If not for Josh Peck, the film would have been completely bad.

source: Chronically Metropolitan

A young writer returns to his home in New York to face the family and ex he left behind. While struggling with writers block he must confront his failures, father and the city that made him. I found this movie on Netflix and loved it so much that I ordered a DVD copy. The writing is sincere, biting and relatable. The performances were engaging and the cinematography felt like a home I've never been to.

1 minute in, a post-middle aged Christopher North is quoting Yeats to a probable teenager who's drinking from a flask in the backseat of his car. She clutches the front row bench seat while he clutches her, providing a recital of the dead Irish poet's prophecies to a fit of drunken giggles and indifference. Mr. North, wearing the worst fake goatee I've seen since a 1970s middle school Halloween party, proceeds to slip her a very visible tongue. I feel incredibly confused and unclean. #MeToo

Slow, plodding, boring, and depressing. I stopped watching half way through, just couldn't take any more "I'm sorry" every other scene. Instead, go empty the trash and clip your toe nails, at least you'll get something done.

This film is beautifully shot with its cinematography of the streets of New York City. Also, the characters here are rich and beautiful and, at times, they'll be some clever dialogue. However, I also found most of the characters here quite manipulative and shallow and lots of the scenarios came across to me as contrived, like a soap opera in other words. To note, this is an adult drama, with some sex scenes, explicit references, raw language, and on screen drug use.